waco mpo

Metropolitan Planning Organization Safety Performance Measures Fact Sheet

Safety Performance Measures The Safety Performance Management Measures regulation supports the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and requires State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to set HSIP targets for 5 safety performance measures. This document highlights the requirements specific to MPOs and provides a comparison of MPO and State DOT responsibilities.

How do MPOs establish HSIP targets? Coordination is the key for all stakeholders in setting HSIP targets. Stakeholders should work together to share data, review strategies and understand outcomes. MPOs must work with the State DOT. MPOs should also coordinate with the State Highway Safety Office, transit operators, local governments, the FHWA Division Office, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regional Office, law enforcement and emergency medical services agencies, and others. By working together, considering and integrating the plans and programs of various safety stakeholders, MPOs will be better able to understand impacts to safety performance to establish appropriate HSIP targets. Coordination should start with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). More information on the SHSP is available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/shsp/.

HSIP Safety Targets Established by MPOs

1 Number of fatalities

2 Rate of fatalities

3 Number of serious injuries

4 Rate of serious injuries

5 Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries

MPOs establish HSIP targets by either: 1. agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of the State DOT

HSIP target or 2. committing to a quantifiable HSIP target for the metropolitan planning area.

To provide MPOs with flexibility, MPOs may support all the State HSIP targets, establish their own specific numeric HSIP targets for all of the performance measures, or any combination. MPOs may support the State HSIP target for one or more individual performance measures and establish specific numeric targets for the other performance measures.

If an MPO agrees to support a State HSIP target, the MPO would …

If an MPO establishes its own HSIP target, the MPO would…

Work with the State and safety stakeholders to address areas of concern for fatalities or serious injuries within the metropolitan planning area

Coordinate with the State and include the safety performance measures and HSIP targets for all public roads in the metropolitan area in the MTP (Metropolitan Transportation Plan)

Integrate into the metropolitan transportation planning process, the safety goals, objectives, performance measures and targets described in other State safety transportation plans and processes such as applicable portions of the HSIP, including the SHSP

Include a description in the TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) of the anticipated effect of the TIP toward achieving HSIP targets in the MTP, linking investment priorities in the TIP to those safety targets

Establish HSIP targets for all public roads in the metropolitan planning area in coordination with the State

Estimate vehicles miles traveled (VMT) for all public roads within the metropolitan planning area for rate targets

Include safety (HSIP) performance measures and HSIP targets in the MTP

Integrate into the metropolitan transportation planning process, the safety goals, objectives, performance measures and targets described in other State safety transportation plans and processes such as applicable portions of the HSIP, including the SHSP

Include a description in the TIP of the anticipated effect of the TIP toward achieving HSIP targets in the MTP, linking investment priorities in the TIP to those safety targets

FHWA-SA-16-084

Volumes for HSIP Rate Targets: MPOs that establish fatality rate or serious injury rate HSIP targets must report the VMT estimate used for such targets, and the methodology used to develop the estimate, to the State DOT. For more information on volumes for HSIP rate targets, see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/tools/technical_guidance/index.cfm.

Roads addressed by MPO HSIP Targets: HSIP targets cover all public roadways within the metropolitan planning area boundary regardless of ownership or functional classification, just as State HSIP targets cover all public roads in the State.

How do MPOs with multi-State boundaries establish HSIP targets? MPOs with multi-State boundaries must coordinate with all States involved. If an MPO with multi-State boundaries chooses to support a State HSIP target, it must do so for each State. For example, an MPO that extends into two States would agree to plan and program projects to contribute to two separate sets of HSIP targets (one for each State). If a multi-State MPO decides to establish its own HSIP target, the MPO would establish the target for the entire metropolitan planning area.

When do MPOs need to establish these targets? States establish HSIP targets and report them for the upcoming calendar year in their HSIP annual report that is due August 31 each year. MPOs must establish HSIP targets within 180 days of the State establishing and reporting its HSIP targets. Since FHWA deems the HSIP reports submitted on August 31, MPOs must establish HSIP targets no later than February 27 of each year.

Top 5 Things to Know about MPO HSIP Safety Performance Targets

All MPOs must set a target for each of the 5 HSIP Safety Performance Measures

MPOs may adopt and support the State’s HSIP targets, develop their own HSIP targets, or use a combination of both

MPOs must establish their HSIP targets by February 27 of the calendar year for which they apply

MPO HSIP targets are reported to the State DOT

MPO HSIP targets are not annually assessed for significant progress toward meeting targets; State HSIP targets are assessed annually

Where do MPOs report targets? While States report their HSIP targets to FHWA in their annual HSIP report, MPOs do not report their HSIP targets directly to FHWA. Rather, the State(s) and MPO mutually agree on the manner in which the MPO reports the targets to its respective DOT(s). MPOs must include baseline safety performance, HSIP targets and progress toward achieving HSIP targets in the system performance report in the MTP. Whether an MPO agrees to support a State HSIP target or establishes its own HSIP target the MPO would include in the MTP a systems performance report evaluating the condition and performance of the transportation system with respect to the safety performance targets described in the MTP including progress achieved by the MPO in achieving safety performance targets

Assessment of Significant Progress While FHWA will determine whether a State DOT has met or made significant progress toward meeting HSIP targets, it will not directly assess MPO progress toward meeting HSIP targets. However, FHWA will review MPO performance as part of ongoing transportation planning process reviews including the Transportation Management Area certification review and the Federal Planning Finding associated with the approval of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.

FHWA-SA-16-084

Date: June 30, 2017 at 9:27:03 AM MDT Subject: Safety Target Coordination with MPOs

We are providing the following information for the Transportation, Planning and Programming Division to share with the Texas Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (TEMPO). We recently met with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) stakeholder and executive teams to discuss SHSP Safety Targets and SHSP Branding. Several MPOs were a part of these meetings. As was discussed at the Safety Target Workshop in January, the SHSP targets have to be consistent with the Highway Safety Plan (HSP) Targets and the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Targets. The HSP and HSIP Targets have to be identical. The MPOs also need to have input into the statewide targets and will establish specific MPO targets or choose to support the statewide targets. The following table summarizes that timeline: Safety Program Target Year(s) Establishment Date Highway Safety Plan (HSP) 2018 and 2020 July 1, 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 2022 August 1, 2017 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 2018 August 31, 2017 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2018 February 27, 2018 The SHSP utilized a data-driven, multi-year, collaborative process to establish safety targets. The consensus of the SHSP stakeholder and executive teams is to utilize a methodology of establishing targets that would result in a 2% reduction from the original trend line projection in 2022. The proposed reduction of 2% by 2022, which only applies to positive slope projection trends, would be achieved by reducing each intermediate year by the following reduction percentages: Year Reduction 2017 0.0% 2018 0.4% 2019 0.8% 2020 1.2% 2021 1.6% 2022 2.0% When the slope analysis projects a negative slope, the target set will mirror the projection determined by the slope. Based upon that direction, draft targets were calculated for the 5 common performance measures as follows: Target: Total number of traffic fatalities 2018 Target: To decrease the expected rise of fatalities from 3,516 in 2015 to not more than 3,891

fatalities in 2018

The 2018 Target expressed as a five year rolling average would be as follows: Year Source Projection or

Actual Data Percent Reduction

Target or Actual Data

2014 FARS 3,536 N/A 3,536 2015 ARF 3,516 N/A 3,516 2016 CRIS 3,775 N/A 3,775 2017 Target 3,801* 0.0% 3,801 2018 Target 3,907* 0.4% 3,891 2018 Target expressed as 5-year average

3,703.8

*based upon linear trend analysis from 2011-2015 FARS data

Target: Total number of incapacitating injuries 2018 Target: To decrease the rise of serious injuries from 17,578 serious injuries in 2016 to not

more than 18,130 serious injuries in 2018 The 2018 Target expressed as a five year rolling average would be as follows: Year Source Projection or

Actual Data Percent Reduction

Target or Actual Data

2014 CRIS 17,133 N/A 17,133 2015 CRIS 17,096 N/A 17,096 2016 CRIS 17,578 N/A 17,578 2017 Target 17,890* 0.0% 17,890 2018 Target 18,203* 0.4% 18,130 2018 Target expressed as 5-year average

17,565.4

*based upon linear trend analysis from 2012-2016 CRIS data

Target: Deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 2018 Target: To decrease the expected rise of deaths per 100 MVMT from 1.36 deaths per 100

MVMT in 2015 to not more than 1.46 deaths per 100 MVMT in 2018 The 2018 Target expressed as a five year rolling average would be as follows: Year Source Projection or

Actual Data Percent Reduction

Target or Actual Data

2014 FARS 1.45 N/A 1.45 2015 ARF 1.36 N/A 1.36 2016 CRIS 1.44 N/A 1.44 2017 Target 1.45* 0.0% 1.45 2018 Target 1.46* 0.4% 1.46 2018 Target expressed as 5-year average

1.432

*based upon linear trend analysis from 2011-2015 FARS data

Target: Serious Injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 2018 Target: To decrease the rate of serious injuries per 100 MVMT from 6.71 serious injuries per

100 MVMT in 2016 to 6.64 serious injuries per 100 MVMT in 2018 The 2018 Target expressed as a five year rolling average would be as follows: Year Source Projection or

Actual Data Percent Reduction

Target or Actual Data

2014 CRIS 7.05 N/A 7.05 2015 CRIS 6.62 N/A 6.62 2016 CRIS 6.71 N/A 6.71 2017 Target 6.68* 0.0% 6.68 2018 Target 6.64* 0.0% 6.64 2018 Target expressed as 5-year average

6.740

*based upon linear trend analysis from 2012-2016 CRIS data

Target: Total number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries 2018 Target: To decrease the expected rise of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries from

2,023 in 2015 to not more than 2,309 non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries in 2018

The 2018 Target expressed as a five year rolling average would be as follows: Year Source Projection or

Actual Data Percent Reduction

Target or Actual Data

2014 FARS-CRIS

1,893 N/A 1,893

2015 FARS-CRIS

2,023 N/A 2,023

2016 CRIS 2,304 N/A 2,304 2017 Target 2,224* 0.0% 2,224 2018 Target 2,318* 0.4% 2,309 2018 Target expressed as 5-year average

2150.6

*based upon linear trend analysis from 2011-2015 FARS and CRIS data

Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization

Crash Data Trends for McLennan County: 2010 to 2017

Federally Required Analysis for Regional Performance Targets

Year Fatalities

Incapacitating

Injuries

Non-Motorized

Fatalities &

Incapacitating Injuries

Annual Vehicle Miles

Traveled* Fatality Rate

Incapacitating

Injury Rate

Non-Motorized Fatality

& Injury Rate

2010 36 198 16 795,000,000 4.5283 24.9057 2.0126

2011 48 206 29 802,324,691 5.9826 25.6754 3.6145

2012 34 221 30 796,865,432 4.2667 27.7337 3.7648

2013 36 172 17 828,849,383 4.3434 20.7517 2.0510

2014 40 189 27 860,296,296 4.6496 21.9692 3.1385

2015 30 208 22 902,259,259 3.3250 23.0532 2.4383

2016 28 243 31 930,000,000 3.0108 26.1290 3.3333

Average 36.00 205.29 24.57 845,085,009 4.2599 24.2917 2.9076

5-year Average 33.60 206.60 25.40 863,654,074 3.8904 23.9216 2.9410

*Off state system vmt not directly calculated: estimated to be 19% of total. 2010 & 2016 VMT estimated

Sources: Crashes - TxDOT Crash Records Information System; VMT - TxDOT Mileage Inventory Report

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Highway Fatalities and Incapacitating Injuries McLennan County - 2010 to 2016

Fatalities

Incapacitating Injuries

Linear (Fatalities)

Linear (Incapacitating Injuries)

0.0000

5.0000

10.0000

15.0000

20.0000

25.0000

30.0000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Rat

e p

er 1

00

mill

ion

Veh

icle

Mile

s o

f Tr

avel

Highway Fatal and Incapacitating Injury Rate McLennan County - 2010 to 2016

Fatality Rate

Incapacitating Injury Rate

Linear (Fatality Rate)

Linear (Incapacitating InjuryRate)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non-Motorized Fatalities & Incapacitating Injuries

Non-Motorized Fatalities &Incapacitating Injuries

Linear (Non-MotorizedFatalities & IncapacitatingInjuries)

500,000,000

550,000,000

600,000,000

650,000,000

700,000,000

750,000,000

800,000,000

850,000,000

900,000,000

950,000,000

1,000,000,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled*

Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled*

Linear (Annual Vehicle MilesTraveled*)

Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization

Crash Data Trends for McLennan County: 2014 to 2016

Federally Required Analysis for Regional Performance Targets

Year Fatalities

Incapacitating

Injuries

Non-Motorized

Fatalities &

Incapacitating Injuries

Annual Vehicle Miles

Traveled* Fatality Rate

Incapacitating

Injury Rate

2014 40 189 27 860,296,296 4.6496 21.9692

2015 30 208 22 902,259,259 3.3250 23.0532

2016 28 243 31 930,000,000 3.0108 26.1290

Average 32.67 213.33 26.67 897,518,519 3.6397 23.7692

*Off state system vmt not directly calculated: estimated to be 19% of total. 2016 VMT estimated

Sources: Crashes - TxDOT Crash Records Information System; VMT - TxDOT Mileage Inventory Report

Regional Crash Targets Concepts

Target Year Fatalities Incapacitating Injuries

Non-Motorized

Fatalities &

Incapacitating Injuries Fatality Rate1

Incapacitating

Injury Rate1

TxDOT Statewide 2018 34 220 27 3.5254 22.8115

MPO Trend** 2018 26 224 30 2.6959 23.2263

**2010 to 2016 trend extrapolated to 20181Fatal and Injury rates calculated using a 2010 to 2016 extrapolation for 2018 VMT

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities Incapacitating Injuries Non-Motorized Fatalities &Incapacitating Injuries

Conceptual 2018 Safety Targets using TxDOT Targets or

2010-2016 McLennan County Trends

TxDOT Statewide

MPO Trend**

PavementPerformance Measures

Performance Measures % of Interstate pavements in Good condition

% of Interstate pavements in Poor condition

% of non-Interstate NHS pavements in Good condition

% of non-Interstate NHS pavements in Poor condition

Target SettingState DOTs:

• Must establish targets, regardless of ownership, for the full extent of the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS.

• Must establish statewide 2- and 4-year targets for the non-Interstate NHS and 4-year targets for the Interstate by May 20, 2018, and report by October 1, 2018.

• May adjust targets at the Mid Performance Period Progress Report (October 1, 2020).

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs):• Support the relevant State DOT(s) 4-

year target or establish their own by 180 days after the State DOT(s) target is established.

Penalty ProvisionsIf FHWA determines the State DOT’s Interstate pavement condition falls below the minimum level for the most recent year, the State DOT must obligate a portion of National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and transfer a portion of Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to address Interstate pavement condition.

About Condition• Good condition: Suggests no

major investment is needed.• Poor condition: Suggests major

reconstruction investment is needed.

Final RulemakingThe Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published in the Federal Register (82 FR 5886) a final rule establishing performance measures for State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) to use in managing pavement and bridge performance on the National Highway System (NHS). The National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program Final Rule addresses requirements established by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and reflects passage of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The rule is effective May 20, 2017.

PavementPerformance Measures

Visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/ to learn about training, guidance, and other implementation-related information.

Key DatesMay 20, 2017 Final rule effective date.

January 1, 2018 1st 4-year performance period begins.

May 20, 2018 State DOT targets must be established.

January 1, 2018 State DOTs collect data for Interstate pavements that conform to the final rule (IRI, Rutting, Cracking %, Faulting, and Inventory).

Within 180 days of relevant State DOT(s) target establishment

MPOs must commit to support state target or establish separate quantifiable target.

October 1, 2018 Baseline Performance Period Report for 1st Performance Period due. State DOTs report 4-year targets for Interstate and 2-year and 4-year targets for non-Interstate NHS; etc.

April 15, 2019, and each April 15 thereafter

State DOTs submit first Interstate data that conform to the final rule.

January 1, 2020 State DOTs collect data for non-Interstate NHS pavements that conform to the final rules.

October 1, 2020 Mid Performance Period Progress Report for the 1st Performance Period due. State DOTs report 2-year condition/performance; progress toward achieving 2-year targets; etc.

June 15, 2021, and each June 15 thereafter

State DOTs submit non-Interstate NHS data that conform to the final rule.

December 31, 2021 1st 4-year performance period ends.

October 1, 2022 Full Performance Period Progress Report for 1st Performance Period due. State DOTs reports 4-year condition/performance; progress toward achieving 4-year targets, etc. Baseline Performance Period Report for 2nd Performance Period due. State DOTs report 2-year and 4-year targets for Interstate and non-Interstate NHS; baseline condition; etc.

Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization

State Highway Pavement Condition Rating - McLennan County, 2017

Federally Required Analysis for Regional Performance Targets

Facility Type Total Lane-Miles IRI = Good1Lane-Miles ACP Lane-Miles JCP Lane-Miles CRCP Lane-Miles Not Evaluated1 Rutting = Good2 Faulting = Good2

Cracking = Good IRI = Poor1 Rutting = Poor2 Faulting = Poor2Cracking = Poor

Interstate Frontage Roads 179.244 41.1% 54.044 4.212 112.722 8.266 98.1% 100.0% 98.2% 13.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%

Interstate Main Lanes 214.197 69.1% 39.983 0.000 173.314 0.900 98.5% 100.0% 96.6% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

Total Interstate 393.441 56.3% 94.027 4.212 286.036 9.166 98.3% 100.0% 97.3% 8.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

Non-Interstate NHS 658.052 49.8% 570.320 68.141 13.967 5.624 79.0% 98.3% 89.7% 7.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

Non-NHS 963.241 38.0% 947.109 10.006 3.926 2.200 81.8% 100.0% 95.2% 10.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.3%

Total All State Highways 2014.734 45.4% 1611.456 82.359 303.929 16.990 81.8% 98.6% 93.8% 9.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

Source: Texas Department of Transportation - Pavement Management Information System

1IRI is evaluated for all highway segments. Not all segments are evaluated for rutting, faulting or cracking.2Rutting is measured only for asphaltic pavements. Faulting is measured only for jointed concrete pavements.

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

Total Interstate Non-Interstate NHS Non-NHS Total All State Highways

Percent of Lane-Miles with Roughness Index Rated 'Good'

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

Total Interstate Non-Interstate NHS Non-NHS Total All State Highways

Percent of Lane-Miles with Roughness Index Rated 'Poor'

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

Total Interstate Non-Interstate NHS Non-NHS Total All State Highways

Percent of Asphaltic Lane-Miles with Rutting Rated 'Good'

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

Total Interstate Non-Interstate NHS Non-NHS Total All State Highways

Percent of Asphaltic Lane-Miles with Rutting Rated 'Poor'

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

92.0%

94.0%

96.0%

98.0%

100.0%

Total Interstate Non-Interstate NHS Non-NHS Total All State Highways

Percent of Lane-Miles with Cracking Rated 'Good'

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

Total Interstate Non-Interstate NHS Non-NHS Total All State Highways

Percent of Lane-Miles with Cracking Rated 'Poor'

BridgePerformance Measures

Performance Measures

% of NHS bridges classified as in Good condition

% of NHS bridges classified as in Poor condition

Condition-Based Performance Measures• Measures are based on deck area.• The classification is based on National

Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition ratings for item 58 - Deck, 59 - Superstructure, 60 - Substructure, and 62 - Culvert.

• Condition is determined by the lowest rating of deck, superstructure, substructure, or culvert. If the lowest rating is greater than or equal to 7, the bridge is classified as good; if is less than or equal to 4, the classification is poor. (Bridges rated below 7 but above 4 will be classified as fair; there is no related performance measure.)

• Deck area is computed using NBI item 49 - Structure Length, and 52 - Deck Width or 32 - Approach Roadway Width (for some culverts).

Target SettingState DOTs:

• Must establish targets for all bridges carrying the NHS, which includes on- and off-ramps connected to the NHS within a State, and bridges carrying the NHS that cross a State border, regardless of ownership.

• Must establish statewide 2- and 4-year targets by May 20, 2018, and report targets by October 1, 2018, in the Baseline Performance Period Report.

• May adjust 4-year targets at the Mid Performance Period Progress Report (October 1, 2020).

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs):

• Support the relevant State DOT(s) 4-year target or establish their own by 180 days after the State DOT(s) target is established.

Final RulemakingThe Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published in the Federal Register (82 FR5886) a final rule establishing performance measures for State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) to use in managing pavement and bridge performance on the National Highway System (NHS). The National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program Final Rule addresses requirements established by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and reflects passage of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The rule is effective May 20, 2017.

BridgePerformance Measures

Key DatesMay 20, 2017 Final rule effective date.

January 1, 2018 1st 4- year performance period begins.

May 20, 2018 Initial 2- and 4-year targets established.

October 1, 2018 Baseline Performance Period Report for the 1st Performance Period due. State DOTs report 2-year and 4-year targets; etc.

Within 180 days of relevant State DOT(s) target establishment

MPOs must commit to support State target or establish separate quantifiable target.

October 1, 2020 Mid Performance Period Progress Report for the 1st

Performance Period due. State DOTs report 2-year condition/performance; progress toward achieving 2-year targets; etc.

December 31, 2021 1st 4-year performance period ends.

October 1, 2022 Full Performance Period Progress Report for 1st performance period due. State DOTs report 4-year condition/performance; progress toward achieving 4-year targets; etc. Baseline report due for 2nd performance period due. State DOTs report 2- and 4-year targets; baseline condition, etc.

Other Specifics• State DOT targets should be determined from asset management analyses and

procedures and reflect investment strategies that work toward achieving a state of good repair over the life cycle of assets at minimum practicable cost. State DOTs may establish additional measures and targets that reflect asset management objectives.

• The rule applies to bridges carrying the NHS, including bridges on on- and off-ramps connected to the NHS.

• If for 3 consecutive years more than 10.0% of a State DOT’s NHS bridges’ total deck area is classified as Structurally Deficient, the State DOT must obligate and set aside National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds for eligible projects on bridges on the NHS.

• Deck area of all border bridges counts toward both States DOTs’ totals.Visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/ to learn about training, guidance,

and other implementation-related information.

Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization

Bridge Condition Rating - McLennan County, 2012-2016

Federally Required Analysis for Regional Performance Targets

Facility Type 2012 2014 2016 2012 2014 2016 2012 2014 2016 2012 2014 2016 2012 2014 2016

Interstate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.6% 36.1% 55.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.2% 41.3% 54.8% 82.61 82.43 82.45

Non-Interstate NHS 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 47.8% 46.9% 48.4% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 39.6% 38.4% 39.8% 84.58 84.71 85.18

Non-NHS 1.9% 0.9% 1.2% 50.4% 48.6% 44.0% 2.7% 1.0% 0.4% 43.5% 44.0% 42.5% 84.73 84.18 83.26

Total All Highways 1.5% 0.6% 0.7% 46.5% 46.4% 47.0% 2.4% 0.3% 0.1% 37.9% 40.9% 45.5% 84.39 84.06 83.58

Source: US Department of Transportation - National Bridge Inventory

Percent Poor Percent Good Bridge Deck Area = Poor Bridge Deck Area = Good Average Sufficiency Rating

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

2012 2014 2016

Percent of Bridges Rated 'Good' McLennan County

Interstate

Non-Interstate NHS

Non-NHS

Total All Highways

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

2.0%

2012 2014 2016

Percent of Bridges Rated 'Poor' McLennan County

Interstate

Non-Interstate NHS

Non-NHS

Total All Highways

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

2012 2014 2016

Percent of Total Deck Area on Bridges Rated 'Good' - McLennan

County

Interstate

Non-Interstate NHS

Non-NHS

Total All Highways

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

2012 2014 2016

Percent of Total Deck Area on Bridges Rated 'Poor' - McLennan

County

Interstate

Non-Interstate NHS

Non-NHS

Total All Highways